NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/talk/abortion/36625

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-15 | 14.6 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36625 alt.abortion.inequity:3774
Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!boulder!ucsu!spot.Colorado.EDU!knapp
From: [e-mail] (David Knapp)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:08:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 353
Nntp-Posting-Host: spot.colorado.edu

I think the attributes are apparent. If you have a problem seeing who is
who, write me.
 stuff deleted.

In article <[e-mail]> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>>>The pro abortion camp IS trying to make laws to force people to do the things
>>>they think we should be doing.
>>
>>What are they forcing?
>
>Sigh. . . Once again, they are forcing the father to allow his child to be
>aborted.  He has no say in the matter, and no choice.  Which is why the
>label 'pro-choice' is an out and out lie.  pro-female-choice, yes.

Before you said that the pro-choice groups was 'forcing' men to have abortions.
Nobody forces a father to 'allow' 'his' child to be aborted.  Perhaps the
woman can somehow give you your sperm back as this, and perhaps a good time,
is all you've given her. She is now stuck with a baby and all that goes along
with it.  All you've lost is a sperm. Perhaps she can give you 50 bucks
for it and you can go find another woman.

It is not 'your baby', it is (if anyones) HER baby as she is the one doing
all the work and going through all the pain to turn your sperm into something
useful.

You are making an issue out of a non-issue (it seems to me.)

You are correct that a 'father' (quoted because I think a father is not
just one who donates a sperm but actually does some work in the matter like
raising children and paying for their welfare etc) has no choice in the matter
because nature has made a decision somewhere down the line that the woman
does the cooking of this pie. It is not a matter of 'choice' for you because
you aren't even part of the equation after you give the sperm.

Get used to it.

You aren't going to get people to support you in having a woman's pregnancy
subject to someone who does not, and will never, understand what it's like
to be pregnant, or to ever be pregnant at all. Since it is the women who
get pregnant, it seems more than fair that they be the judge of that
pregnancy.


>>That's probably true. If you want to have rights over children being born,
>>help fund medical research to allow the implantation of a uterus in males.
>>
>>Until then, relax and accept your biological bind.
>
>If I said that to a woman who wanted to get a job but was refused on the
>basis of her physical inability to do the job, she would scream sexism.

It's not that simple and you know it.  If a woman cannot do a job, she is
not suited for the job. You are bringing up an analogy which is inapropriate
because there *may* be woman who *can* do a physically demanding job. There
are lots of women who could whup me good and I am not a small guy. The point
is that being a woman doesn't imply you cannot do a job. It would have
to be another facet of that individual that decides that.  Men *cannot* get
pregnant. You can't find *any*.

>I gues sexism is OK when women apply it to men, but not vice versa.

You can come to any conclusion you want when the assumptions are incorrect.

>>>I've already stated, repeatedly (four times now, to be precise) that
>>>I support the idea of legal abortion, but I do NOT support abortion as
>>>a unilateral choice.  It is a choice that should only be made by the
>>>couple.
>>
>>So it is bad to have the *state* to mandate abortion, but it's ok for
>>a husband to mandate abortion rights if he feels like it?
>
>???? I do not understand what you are saying here.  Or maybe it just doesn't
>have anything to do with what I said?

It has *everything* to do with what you've said. You have made a point of
stating that you are not necessarily for making abortion illegal (state mandate)
but that you only suppor this because it would be an 'expedient' way of
guaranteeing men's 'rights'. On the other hand you support law mandating
'your' right's over the woman's reproduction.

If you don't see it, don't worry about it.


>>Am I missing something?
>
>It would seem so.

Not according to what you've written.

>>>I simply support making abortion illegal, because it is the most politically
>>>expedient way of making the rights of men and women equal.
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>You have a different definition of expedient than I do.
>
>Probably.
>
>>Also, men and women are not purely equal. You *seem* to be working for
>>equality in an area that equality cannot exist in because of intrinsic
>>biological differences.
>
>So what?  The feminist movement has made NO exceptions to the equal
>rights cause on the basis of sex, why start now?

I've never heard the feminist movement looking to control male sexual
activity or reproductive activity. You are addressing the fundamental
differences between a male and a female. Femenists have never said
(at least I've never heard them say it, and I know a large number of
them) that men and women were intrinsically equal. If we were intrinsically
equal, there would only be one gender. No sexual differentiation. If there
are feminists that think we are physically equal, they are simply incorrect.
Now if a feminist states that women should be treated with the same respect
and paid the same while doing the same job a man is doing, with equal
skill and quality, I'd have to agree with them. This is not a gender specific
issue and when it is *made* one, then there is a problem.


>To answer the question, because THIS is the one case where women have
>MORE rights than men.

I wouldn't call it a 'right'. I'd call it a fact of nature that you've
got to learn to accept as much as you accept gravity.

>>>As an ex-feminist, I am VERY supportive of the idea of equal rights,
>>>regardless of sex.
>>
>>Well, I'm sorry, but there are some things we will never be equal in
>>because of intrinsic differences.
>
>Oh good.  Then according to you, we can junk the idea of equal rights in
>favor of granting rights based on based on individual ability, talent,
>sex, race, etc.

You're comparing apples and oranges. If you need feminism and equal
rights explained in more detail, bring up the subject on alt.feminism and
you might have it cleared up for you.

If you are paying someone to have a baby (this is done) and a man comes
up and wants that job, what are you going to do? Do you see the absurdity?
What do you tell him? Of course, you are discriminating on the basis of
sex because the *gender is required for the job!*  Do you think any men
win law suits against Playboy magazine because they disriminate against him
due to gender?  There are times when it is perfectly acceptable to reject
a person for a job based on gender when gender is required to do the job.


>>No amount of lobbying is going to change that,
>
>It already HAS changed the law.  Try telling the feminists that no amount
>of lobbying is going to get you equal rights and then tell me what their
>reply is.

Again, you are missing the point.

>>>Thanks, awfully.  But your support for my right to CHOOSE does not change
>>>the fact that the government has passed and enforces many laws that make
>>>such actions as killing myself, smoking dope or shooting up heroin
>>>illegal.
>>
>>I think the fact that they've done that is absurd.
>
>I disagree.  Obviously, such actions affect society, they are not done
>in total isolation.

Yes, it affects society. Now we smoke dope in the woods. Wasn't *that*
productive?


>>The fact that they've done that is also somewhat pointless judging by
>>the amount of heroin and pot use and the amount of suicide.
>
>Not pointless at all.  It has VERY far reaching economic effects.  Try
>claiming life insurance benefits on someone who has commited suicide,
>or health insurance benefits if you need medical attention due to an
>overdose, or an adverse reaction to a controlled substance.

The point is that it is not a deterrent, not that it has no legal
ramifications. You are flying off on a tangent.

>And, of course, you can pretty much guarantee that you will be held
>legally liable if you are found to be guilty of illegal drug use
>contributing to a motor vehicle accident.

As with alcohol (which is legal). But it is not the *use* of alcohol
that is illegal it is the *misuse* that is. It doesn't make sense to not
have the same situation with pot. But we digress. Back to the issue, please.

>>>Of course, the difference between getting really drunk every night, or
>>>getting really drunk and driving is whether or not I involve other
>>>people.
>>
>>Yes. Early abortions do not harm anyone else.
>
>The baby.  What about the baby?

What baby? The early abortion affects a fetus. If you are going to redefine
words to confuse things, to heck with 'ya. Stick to medical terminology
so when can agree on what is what.  An early term fetus has no functioning
brain so it *cannot* (unless you are a religious fanatic who believes that
a soul is instilled at conception; try making sense of *that* one.) be a
person.

>>I know you might say that because *you* wanted the child, it harms you,
>
>Got it in one.  As an aside, does it frighten you to know that you are
>begining to understand how I think, even if just a little?

Not at all. I am *glad* to think so because that is what I'm *trying* to do!

Even if I am (and I think I am) I do not agree with you in that women should
have their pregnancies influenced by men. I've not seen good reasoning,
and I don't think there *is* good reasoning, to justify this.


>>but that is the sad fact of biology I'm recommending you simply accept.
>
>Almost word for word what I heard a man tell a feminist protester.

It is true for women too! They have to accept the limitations of their
gender as much as we have to accept ours. This has *nothing* to do
with equal pay for equal service. If you're service is gender specific,
you cannot very well have equality, can you.

> I
>will allow your imagination to fill in the response, and use that response
>as my own.

I would prefer to reason through it.

>>You are a prisoner in your body and cannot hope to change your control
>>over who gives birth, your or your SO.
>
>I've never had any interest in trying to control over gives birth.

You've stated that you would like a say in whether or not your SO has
your child.

> But
>the biological fact that you seem not to be able to accept is that my
>SO would NEVER have gotten pregnant if not for me (the father).

Yes.

>gives me legal obligations and should give me legal rights.

It should give you the right to not support the child if you don't want
the child. That's what this group is about. I would agree with you. If you
*want* the child, and she doesn't, I argue you're stuck.

>>Until you can do that, you'll have to hope she's a nice person
>>and/or wants to have the baby. Having a baby can be considered (at least
>>at times) as a *favor* your SO does for you. I have even heard meN
>>literally thank their SOs for putting in so much work, being so commited
>>and going through so much pain for them to be able to have a child.
>
>Try looking at it from the other side.  My wife thanked me for getting
>her pregnant,

I've heard that too. Fine.

> and for being very supportive of her during and after the
>pregnancy.

Yes. That was nice of you.That might even be considered a favor?


>You see, having a baby is not a favor anybody does for
>anybody else.

Of course, it doesn't *have* to be, which is why I worded the above the way
I did.

>It was a joint effort, it should entail joint responsibility
>and equal rights.

Again, if it was a joint effort, then it was, but that is not always the case.
It is intrinsically the effort the woman that is responsible for the baby's
development. There is nothing you can really do to develop that baby save
buy the woman food or support her emotionally and financially. You can ease
her discomfort, but you cannot have babies. That is not subject to anything
considered 'joint' at all.

>Or, another way of thinking about it is, that men do women a favor by
>getting them pregnant.

Most often, I've heard women refer to men 'getting' them pregnant as the
opposite of a favor.

>If he/she does not wish to be a parent, then he/she will not consider it
>a favor, so he/she should be able to terminate/avoid the parental role.

Right.

>Women do this by choosing not to have sex, by using birth control and
>if all else fails, by aborting the child.

Yes.

And we know how *men* do it.

>Men do this by choosing not to have sex, using birth control, and
>if all else fails, legally notifying the mother of his decision to
>terminate his parental responsibilities and rights. . . Ooops, for
>a moment there, I slipped into a fantasy world where men are not
>treated as second class citizens.  Forgive me.

I don't disagree with you on that point.

>>>Abortion by definition is NOT a personal choice.
>>
>>I hope to help it remain a personal choice. I'm sorry if it leads to
>>fisticuffs with you.
>
>Yes.  We would both be sorry.  You for starting the fight (I DO NOT start
>physical violence) and me for reacting to it.

I don't start them either.

>>Yes, two to start, one to finish.
>>
>>Is starting a pregnancy so hard for you that you can't just go find another
>>SO and see if *she* won't have your baby?
>
>Some people will copulate with anything that moves.

I haven't met any of those people.

>Others apply loose
>standards for selection, others apply very strict standards and have
>highly complex rituals to indicate commitment, etc., before engaging
>in such behavior.  If one is of the latter type, yes, it may be very
>difficult to 'just go find another SO'.

Yes. But if having a child is as important to someone as it sounds like it
is to you, it may be necessary to make the difficult decision to end the
relationship as it has not turned out that the agreement to have children
is being respected by both persons. This happens a lot.



>>You have an odd definition of 'just'.
>
>You mean, you don't consider the concept of 'equal rights' to be just?
>
>What is it, then?

Think about the real issue of 'equality' as defined by the feminists and
the issue of gender equality.They are very different and cannot be used
analogously.

--
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   [e-mail]